Government, Land Use and a New Tomorrow

In this local election year, cyberspace and coffee shops are talking land use and the role of government. The clamor is divided, between those seeking top-down Chicago bossing versus passive-aggressive Seattle inclusiveness, and progressive sustainability versus practicality.

Often the debate suggests governmental error, when a reasoned and balanced policy choice may have been the real driver.

As one Bothell commenter said in the Seattle Times on July 20, ” That is the problem with government. Its decisions are usually based on what should be (fantasy) and not on what is (reality).”

The topic? The unhappy parking limitations adjacent to south Seattle light rail stations. By this line of thinking, “government erred” by exiling from transit nirvana those who do not live there, and cannot walk or take a convenient feeder bus.

But is this truly an error–or a reasoned and balanced policy choice–intended to blueprint a new land use pattern in our region while balancing the costs of retrofitting existing urban infrastructure?

We see similar patterns as governments wrestle with issues of housing types and affordability.

For instance, Seattle continues to explore how to provide housing diversity and retain a single family look and feel in traditional neighborhoods. Pending consideration of “backyard cottages” would remove geographic restrictions on such cottages, currently limited to eligible lots in southeast Seattle, but would limit the number of cottages which could be built per year to 50 citywide.

Many surrounding municipalities allow such cottages, and California has a long history of encouraging municipalities to provide “second units” assuming zoning parameters can be otherwise met and applications are subject to fair review.

So why an arbitrary limit of 50? Error or reasoned policy choice? In California, perhaps the former, with legal overtones.

Witness Woodinville, which resisted playing host to Tent City 4 in 2006 after the sponsoring church failed to apply for a permit as promised. Last week, the Washington Supreme Court found City error, not reasoned policy choice, and looked behind a 12-month moratorium imposed while Woodinville reviewed sustainable development regulations in the same residential zone where Northshore United Church of Christ proposed to house Tent City.

The Court found that the Woodinville moratorium and processing delay violated the Washington Constitution, substantially burdening the Church’s acknowledged religious right to shelter the homeless. Woodinville had ironically hosted Tent City in 2004, without the contentious Federal court litigation which had ensued over Bellevue “temporary encampment ordinance” (settled by a balanced Consent Decree settlement in early 2006 in which my firm participated).

The bottom line: Ronald Reagan said ” Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Are we still living in his world?

Or, as governments balance the benefits and burdens of land use policy, are they just the laboratory of democracy where we balance the growing pains of a new tomorrow?